Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 200 (308740)
05-03-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 12:26 AM


Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity. A transitional form is a link in the chain, which you have presupposed is so blatantly obvious. If all species are inter-related, then surely there should be unquestionable evidence of it. We should see the evidence of this occurrence abounding in the fossil record as well as overwhelming evidence walking around right now. We should see organisms that are a quarter of this, and a quarter of that, half-this, and half-that. Nothing has been discovered that is even remotely comparable to this very necessary evolvement. We aren’t merely speaking about ”the’ missing link, we are talking about ”all’ of the missing links from all taxa, including every kingdom, phylum, genera, etc. Moreover, we are not talking about one link in the chain; we are talking about a large number of chains necessary to compel an amoeba to a man. Changes would have to be so radical and so vast, stretching through so many ages, it would require millions of connecting links. If reptiles became mammals or birds, then there should be some evidence of it.
Archaeopteryx has been dubbed a transitional form by nearly all evolutionists. Even supposing that this is a genuine intermediary creature, this example would be one instance out of millions. That is a far, cry from proving macroevolution. The theory alleges that reptiles are most closely related to birds. For starters, Archaeopteryx was the size of a pigeon -a vast difference from the megalithic-sized beasts they claim that it spawned. Furthermore, avian are endothermic (warm-blooded) and reptiles are exothermic (cold-blooded). Avian have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas, reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, whereas Avian have a four-chambered heart. Avian have hollow bones and saurian have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles. Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ”is’ the missing link. Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop. How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? What unseen event precipitated the changes to occur, far in advance of any conceivable relevance to its survival? The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this creature have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird -a perching bird. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 12:26 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AdminJar, posted 05-03-2006 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 78 by RickJB, posted 05-03-2006 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 12:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 126 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-05-2006 7:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 200 (308756)
05-03-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 11:20 AM


Welcome to EvC
At the end of this message there several links to threads that might help make your stay here more enjoyable. One thing you should know is that in the various science forums you are expected to back up assertions with either evidence or logic. In your post there is little other than unsupported assertion and what is generally refered to as PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).
It is very likely that you wil be challenged on many of your points, particularly the assertion that "Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ”is’ the missing link.", or "The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird -a perching bird. Period."
When challenged on those and other assertions you make please try to have some actualy evidence other than your personal incredulity for support.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-03-2006 10:56 AM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    RickJB
    Member (Idle past 4991 days)
    Posts: 917
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 04-14-2006


    Message 78 of 200 (308757)
    05-03-2006 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity.
    This is just not true.
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    A transitional form is a link in the chain, which you have presupposed is so blatantly obvious. If all species are inter-related, then surely there should be unquestionable evidence of it.
    There is, though "inter-related" is not a good way to term it.
    Now, no scientist will tell you that there isn't much yet to be learned about the origins of flight, but you make the ultimate mistake of assuming a that gap in any type knowledge automatically invalidates that which IS known.
    There is little doubt that the evolution of flight is one of the sketchiest areas of the ToE, but that in no way detracts from a wealth of evidence that DOES well support evolution. The ToE is far from complete, but for the last 150 years EVERY new observation in its field has supported its core hypothesis.
    Sooo...
    ..if you disagree with the ToE, stop waving your arms around and produce an alternative hypothesis that can be falsified!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 12:13 PM RickJB has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 79 of 200 (308765)
    05-03-2006 12:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by RickJB
    05-03-2006 12:02 PM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    There is little doubt that the evolution of flight is one of the sketchiest areas of the ToE, but that in no way detracts from a wealth of evidence that DOES well support evolution.
    Actually there is quite a bit of evidence on the origin of flight, wings and feathers. One of the more likely candidates is reuse and redirection of existing capabilities, a function shift. You can read more about that here.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by RickJB, posted 05-03-2006 12:02 PM RickJB has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by RickJB, posted 05-03-2006 3:10 PM jar has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 80 of 200 (308767)
    05-03-2006 12:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 11:20 AM


    Oh dear!
    quote:
    There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity.
    Actually, there are hundreds, even thousands, of known intermediaries. Kathleen Hunt has written a pretty good description of a few of the important ones. And her essay is now out of date -- it doesn't list tiktallik for example.
    -
    quote:
    For starters, Archaeopteryx was the size of a pigeon -a vast difference from the megalithic-sized beasts they claim that it spawned.
    Huh? What are these "megalithic-sized" animals, and why couldn't Archaeopteryx have "spawned" them?
    -
    quote:
    Furthermore, avian are endothermic (warm-blooded) and reptiles are exothermic (cold-blooded). Avian have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas, reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, whereas Avian have a four-chambered heart. Avian have hollow bones and saurian have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles.
    Why couldn't these Avian features have developed from the earlier reptilian features?
    -
    quote:
    Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop.
    It didn't happen in one fell swoop. It happened gradually, over a long period of time.
    -
    quote:
    What unseen event precipitated the changes to occur, far in advance of any conceivable relevance to its survival?
    That is an interesting question; what were the environmental pressures which led the the evolution of these particular features? People are still working on this. However, we do have evidence that it did happen, and this question doesn't invalidate the evidence.
    -
    quote:
    How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird?
    Probably the early wings were not stump-like appendages. Why do you think they were?
    -
    quote:
    The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur....
    Actually, it is. It has more dinosaurian characteristics than bird characteristics. This essay describes some of these. Why do you think that Archaeopteryx was just a "perching bird"?

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 81 of 200 (308775)
    05-03-2006 12:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    At the end of this message there several links to threads that might help make your stay here more enjoyable. One thing you should know is that in the various science forums you are expected to back up assertions with either evidence or logic. In your post there is little other than unsupported assertion and what is generally refered to as PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). It is very likely that you wil be challenged on many of your points, particularly the assertion that "Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ”is’ the missing link.", or "The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird -a perching bird. Period."
    When challenged on those and other assertions you make please try to have some actualy evidence other than your personal incredulity for support.
    Its common knowledge that evolutionists have maintained that Archaeopteryx was the missing link in the chain from saurian to avian. This was slightly modified when Falcarius Utahensis was discovered, and again remodified when Archaeoraptor was discovered, er, invented. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is. The trouble remains for the evolutionist to explain how so many gradations existed in one felled swoop.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/Archaeopteryx
    Avian body temperature is vastly different from saurians
    "The circulatory system is similar to those in other vertebrates. As in mammals, birds have a four-chambered heart; however, a bird's heart is proportionately larger and more powerful.
    2. Birds usually have higher metabolic rates than mammals, reptiles, or amphibians and need larger, more efficient hearts.
    a. Birds require large amounts of energy for flight, and need efficient oxygen circulation in high altitudes. The highest flight recorded for a bird was 11,274 m (37,000 ft.) when a Ruppell's griffon vulture collided into a commercial airline over western Africa (Martin, 1987).
    3. Birds normally maintain a body temperature of 380C to 420C (100.40F-107.60F) (Brooke and Birkhead, 1991). They thermoregulate in a variety of ways.
    a. Arteries and veins in the head and legs of many birds form heat exchangers called retia mirabilia. A net of vein and arterial vessels lie side by side, allowing outgoing arterial blood to pass heat to the incoming venous blood. This cools the outgoing blood and warms the incoming blood, minimizing heat loss in areas with little or no feathers.
    b. Birds also stay warm by increasing their activity rate (metabolism), fluffing feathers to trap insulating air, shivering, or tucking exposed parts, such as faces and legs into feathers.
    c. To stay cool, birds can decrease their activity rate, sleek feathers flat to get rid of trapped air, or pant. New World vultures have an interesting cooling method known as urohidrosis. They squirt liquid excrement on their legs, which are cooled as the water in the excrement evaporates."
    Given the large changes that were required of reptiles in order to change into birds, coupled with the fact that there is no prevailing evidence of such, leads us to believe that it is wholly imagined that any sort of transmogrification has/is/will occur.
    This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-03-2006 11:59 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by AdminJar, posted 05-03-2006 1:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 91 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 3:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 82 of 200 (308779)
    05-03-2006 1:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 12:48 PM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    As Admins, we do not take part in debating the content or message of posts.
    In addition, let me point you towards the LGRB (Little Green Reply Button) that is found at the lower right corner of each message. If you use that to reply to a particular message it links the two so that folk can follow the sub threads and conversations. If the other poster has notification turned on it also sends them a notice that someone has replied.
    I also edited your post to change the part you tried to bold into a quote. If you use the peek function you can see how that was done.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 1:50 PM AdminJar has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 83 of 200 (308785)
    05-03-2006 1:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 12:48 PM


    What is the problem?
    Hello, nemesis.
    quote:
    Given the large changes that were required of reptiles in order to change into birds...
    And what, exactly, is the problem with these "large changes"?
    -
    quote:
    ...coupled with the fact that there is no prevailing evidence of such....
    There is plenty of evidence that life in general has evolved from a very few, single celled forms over three and a half billion years. There is a lot of evidence that birds, mammals, and reptiles all share a common ancestor. Further, the evidence indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. I am afraid there is a lack of evidence only because you won't look at it.

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 2493 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 84 of 200 (308786)
    05-03-2006 1:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    Well from the body of your post, I can tell you have little or no knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, it's predictions, evidence for it, or for that matter the field of general biology.
    So, rational debate is pretty much out the window right at the get go.
    I won't try to address your points, since you made none.
    But I will comment on this --
    We should see organisms that are a quarter of this, and a quarter of that, half-this, and half-that. Nothing has been discovered that is even remotely comparable to this very necessary evolvement.
    While this statement is out and out ridiculous, and is a great demonstration of exactly how little the Fundies really understand about biology. I'll leave you to ponder this picture...
    This is the recently extinct Quagga. Half horse, half zebra? Powned!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 2:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

      
    EZscience
    Member (Idle past 5154 days)
    Posts: 961
    From: A wheatfield in Kansas
    Joined: 04-14-2005


    Message 85 of 200 (308789)
    05-03-2006 1:41 PM


    What about the hoatzin ?
    I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this living relic shares many features with Archeopterix, including claws on the wings.
    Coincidence?

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 3:59 PM EZscience has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 86 of 200 (308792)
    05-03-2006 1:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by AdminJar
    05-03-2006 1:04 PM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    "No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree. Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense. "We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake. The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, 'This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.'"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/10/051010085411.htm
    So, we have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, but simply reports the plain facts concerning Theropod lineage in modern avian. This flies in the face of everything we were taught in primary school as well as virtually every college biology textbook in the world. Revision? Reproof?
    Discuss.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by AdminJar, posted 05-03-2006 1:04 PM AdminJar has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by RickJB, posted 05-03-2006 3:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 87 of 200 (308796)
    05-03-2006 2:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Nuggin
    05-03-2006 1:32 PM


    Pwned???
    quote:
    Well from the body of your post, I can tell you have little or no knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, it's predictions, evidence for it, or for that matter the field of general biology.
    So, rational debate is pretty much out the window right at the get go.
    You're entitled to your opinion based on Constitutional and Divine Law.
    quote:
    While this statement is out and out ridiculous, and is a great demonstration of exactly how little the Fundies really understand about biology. I'll leave you to ponder this picture...
    This is the recently extinct Quagga. Half horse, half zebra? Powned!
    Was that supposed to prove some sort of macroevolutionary progress? Quagga, Zebra, donkeys and horses are all Equine's. Claiming this to be some sort of empirical evidence of transspecific evolution is like using a German Shepherd and a wolf in the same way in the bag of evidence. Maybe I need to clarify any misgivings or misconceptions regarding evolution. In evolution, there are answers to two very different questions. First, evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already extant, complex life forms. For example, if a small, contingent of birds migrate to an isolated island, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features, not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, evolution is uncontroversial. Evolutionary biologists are not content, however, on merely explaining how variations occur, but aspire to answer a much broader question. They seek to explain how all of life began in the first place. In this endeavor, they took small pieces of a puzzle and attempted to configure and fashion their own version of events. The Quagga is not even remotely relevant to what is necessary for successful propagation of sustained macroevolution. The Quagga is a product of natural, microevolution. Evolutionists enjoy prominently displaying articles and models on the evolution of horses, whales, and hominids. They confuse the possible with the impossible every chance they get. This is where evolution gets hazy and it is no accident, and so, as a result, you have the majority of the scientific community as well as the media in agreement simply out of ignorance. (Based off of your answers, you fall somewhere precariously in this category). How is it that individuals who pride themselves on their pragmatism and empiricism, continue to follow such an unempirical theory? Undoubtedly, there are powerful alliances with a vested, interest in the propulsion of this untenable theory. They would prefer that you do not challenge or question them, much less, understand all of the facts. Take for example the canine family. We all know there are many breeds of dogs and that their unique characteristics were the product of microevolution. This is unquestionable. You can breed all kinds of dogs with amazing variation because the DNA will permit this. Nevertheless, in the end, a dog is still a dog and will always be a dog. Nothing in the known universe has ever presented a shred of evidence to the contrary. Likewise, botanists have breed many different types of roses, varying in size, shape, and color; but, as the saying goes, ”a rose is still a rose by any other name.’

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 1:32 PM Nuggin has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 3:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    RickJB
    Member (Idle past 4991 days)
    Posts: 917
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 04-14-2006


    Message 88 of 200 (308807)
    05-03-2006 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 79 by jar
    05-03-2006 12:13 PM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    Thanks Jar!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 12:13 PM jar has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 89 of 200 (308808)
    05-03-2006 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 2:12 PM


    Re: Pwned???
    Quagga, Zebra, donkeys and horses are all Equine's.
    "Equine" is not a species. Equus, which you may be thinking of, is a genus, containing the different species you've mentioned above.
    Claiming this to be some sort of empirical evidence of transspecific evolution is like using a German Shepherd and a wolf in the same way in the bag of evidence.
    Right. German Shepards and Gray Wolves are two different species. The fact that one evolved from the other is proof of what you call "transspecific evolution." What else would the evolution of one species from another be expected to prove?
    Evolutionary biologists are not content, however, on merely explaining how variations occur, but aspire to answer a much broader question. They seek to explain how all of life began in the first place.
    No, they really don't. The origins of life is the province of biochemists, because the origin on life is a chemical problem.
    Evolutionary biologists study the history and diversity of species on Earth.
    How is it that individuals who pride themselves on their pragmatism and empiricism, continue to follow such an unempirical theory?
    Isn't that a pretty powerful indication that you're wrong about evolution? That the evidentiary basis for the theory you dismiss is considerably better developed than you're prepared to admit?
    Undoubtedly, there are powerful alliances with a vested, interest in the propulsion of this untenable theory.
    Ah, right. Conspiracy theories. That's always a convincing argument.
    Take for example the canine family.
    Canidae is a family that contains wolves, dogs, foxes, and jackals. It's a very ancient family that has grown to include a large number of species that cannot possibly interbreed, thus providing a handy proof of macroevolution and the power of random mutation and natural selection to result in completely new species.
    Likewise, botanists have breed many different types of roses, varying in size, shape, and color; but, as the saying goes, ”a rose is still a rose by any other name.’
    Which disproves the idea of using common names as a basis for species identification. But for some reason, you persist in doing so. You will not understand how evolution is possible until you understand the organization of living things, and you cannot do that merely by looking at what organisms are called.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 2:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    RickJB
    Member (Idle past 4991 days)
    Posts: 917
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 04-14-2006


    Message 90 of 200 (308810)
    05-03-2006 3:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
    05-03-2006 1:50 PM


    Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    So, we have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, but simply reports the plain facts concerning Theropod lineage in modern avian. This flies in the face of everything we were taught in primary school as well as virtually every college biology textbook in the world.
    No, you have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, arguing that there is a problem with our assumptuions about the evolution of birds. Nothing he says is a threat to the ToE - he simply sees a lack of evidence in this area.
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    Revision? Reproof?
    Reproof? No. This isn't how science operates. Science doesn't seek "proof", it seeks the accumulation of evidence to support its hypotheses.
    Revision? Absolutely! Science is always open to revisions (or revolutions). The ToE has, in effect, been revised repeatedly for 150 years as we have observed and accumulated evidence. Nothing has contradicted Darwin's core assertions, but scientists have refined and revised and rethought many of the details...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 1:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 3:53 PM RickJB has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024